The Socratic Method takes on Atheism ...

Inspired from a previous thread, which I admit got derailed a few times based on the ever present Atheist Vs. God debate;

However this one will be inclined using the Socratic method to investigate the claims of an Atheist. So as in the original technique of Socrates, I
will ask a series of question for the purpose of learning about your perspective as well as deepening your own understanding of your point of view.
Help me to understand you and also remember the questioning will go beyond these original ten questions.

1. Why are you an Atheist?
2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?
3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?
5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?
6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?
7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?
8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?
9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.
10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?

1. There's is nothing, nothing at all, which makes me believe that there's a god.
2. Of course not.
3. There's a ton of evidence, you might want to look up science.
4. That they are idiots.
5. No idea.
6. Looking at the world we live in he would be an absolute prick.
7. N/A
8. Admit that i was wrong?
9. Yeap.
10. Yeap.

1) i do not believe in any of the stories about gods.. i think the stories are manmade fantasy. as for the real world, i have yet to find or see any
gods, and i dont think any are required for the existance of the universe.

2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?

2) no

3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

3) yes

4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?

4) never talked to them about it. but as for people who hear voices, like american ex president g.w.bush, who said yahweh told him to attack
iraq i can only speculate as to why he would claim so.

5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?

5) well what is "experiencing" a god? what are the characteristics of the god in question? i would ask more about what you experienced.

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?

6) if what god existed? if there was 1 god only, who was invisible and the maker of earth, stars and everything? my version of it would be nothing
realy, until one can find out more about it.

7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?

7)

8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?

8) depends on what god we are talking about, hard to answer, but in general id no longer be an atheist, and go on with life as now.

9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.

9)

10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?

1. There's is nothing, nothing at all, which makes me believe that there's a god.

Let us hypothetically assume then, that if there is nothing that that will make you believe so, what if Everything itself is God?

2. Of course not.

How do you know this?

3. There's a ton of evidence, you might want to look up science.

But doesn't science only study materialism or that which can be measured, seen, touched, etc? Also based on this statement are you saying science is
or isn't looking for God?

4. That they are idiots.

How can you be absolutely sure of what you are saying?

5. No idea.

So we have 2 sides saying 2 different things. 1 yes there is God and the other no there isn't. Doesn't the side that says yes there is hold as much
weight as the side that says no there isn't?

6. Looking at the world we live in he would be an absolute prick.

So you would ascribe the conditions of the world to be the fault of God (if he were to exist) instead of the people that cause this to be so? Since
you are an Atheist it is people that are responsible for the conditions of the world correct?

7. N/A

Is logic and reason limited or infinite?

8. Admit that i was wrong?

So you are saying that the only way you would acknowledge the existence of a God is only if science said it was true?

9. Yeap.

So can we clearly define what is superstition based on the fact that it is relative with the times and present known knowledge?

10. Yeap.

Is the information based on science, logic/reason, 5 senses relative to time? I.e. as we progress forward in time, we learn more and more about our
surroundings things that we didn't once know?

1) i do not believe in any of the stories about gods.. i think the stories are manmade fantasy. as for the real world, i have yet to find or see any
gods, and i dont think any are required for the existance of the universe.

Do you know what the definition of God is? Can we also say that stories that there is no God can also be manmade fantasy?
I'll skip 2 just for a bit and come back to it

3) yes

So if you agree with this, would you also agree with the statement that just because there is no evidence of God that suits your satisfactory
requirements as proof, does not mean that there is no God?

4) never talked to them about it. but as for people who hear voices, like american ex president g.w.bush, who said yahweh told him to attack iraq i
can only speculate as to why he would claim so.

But could not we also say the people who hear voices have psychological issues? Could we also say that people who don't know the origin of something
if they are religious can instantly attribute something to God even if it wasn't God?

5) well what is "experiencing" a god? what are the characteristics of the god in question? i would ask more about what you experienced.

So are you saying you would be interested to hear about people's experiences with this so called God? Would that have any sway over your stance of
Atheism? Of course the characteristics in question vary with the individual, but we can save that for another discussion.

6) if what god existed? if there was 1 god only, who was invisible and the maker of earth, stars and everything? my version of it would be nothing
realy, until one can find out more about it.

So you would give God the attribute of Invisibility in said hypothetical scenario? So God would be nothing to you until we can get more information on
this Nothingness. Can we say nothingness is still something? Also what information would you require that would suit you when you said "until one can
find out more about it"?

7)

I'll rephrase. To a certain extant we can say that as human beings we use logic and reason on a daily basis to make decisions, debate, and make
conclusions based on what is assumed or premised at the time. Do you agree that logic and reason is limited based on what you currently know?

8) depends on what god we are talking about, hard to answer, but in general id no longer be an atheist, and go on with life as now.

Lets say there is only 1, the same one everyone's always quibilling about in the majority of mainstream religions. So what your saying is basically
that you are an atheist because there is no proof to satisfy you that there is a God? Would you also agree that science hasn't yet uncovered
everything?

10) absolutely.

Would you agree or not that there is spectrums of light beyond what is capable for the eyes to see, pitches in sound beyond what is capable for ears
to hear, and scientific discoveries that have yet to be found? Can it be said that a child of the age of 4 with their experience of the use of logic
and reason cannot fathom quantum mechanics or calculus? i.e. are these topics beyond their understanding?

Thanks for the invite. However I would like to point out that as an atheist I do not make any claims regarding god, I merely react to the claims of
others. I should probable also point out that I already accept the possibility of god, in case that’s where you’re going.

1 – I simply see no reason to believe in a god therefore I do not.

2 – No and in answer to your follow up to Edews I know this because of prior cases where non belief in something has turned out to be the incorrect
position.

3 – Yes

4 – I think that just because someone interprets something as being godly in origin does not necessarily make it so. I also think that the wide
variation in people’s experiences and the contradictions that they bring up would tend to preclude anything supernatural.

5 – As Daniem said without a clear understanding of what god is then how can you know if you have experienced it. Ultimately claims are meaningless
until one party defines what god is but I would think that to do that the question of whether there is a god would have to have already been answered.

6 – He would probably be me. That would be my ideal god!

7 – Yes and possibly but we can’t know what that is if there is.

8 – I wouldn’t be an atheist.

9 – It’s an interesting point but ultimately I would say no, not if superstition is taken to mean a belief for which there is no logic or reason.
If someone 2000 years ago believed that aircraft existed at that time without logic or reason to back that belief up then that would be superstitious.
However I would say that if the same person came to this belief through logic and reason then it would not be a superstitious belief. Their reasoning
can be flawed and they can be wrong but I wouldn’t describe it as superstition.

Put simply, an Atheist does not believe in God. God is not well defined, however for the common definitions that I am familiar with, I do not believe
in it. I don't believe in any supreme being, or spiritual entities.

I accept the scientific worldview and reject mystical worldviews. There are several reasons for this, including the relative success of each system
in terms of demonstrating understanding of the world by using theories to make successful predictions, the underlying philosophical ideas about
reality and how to understand it, and the lack of logical progression within mystical beliefs system compared to the astounding logical progression in
science.

Accepting the scientific worldview entails accepting a very specific system for evaluating beliefs. In this case, the crux of the issue is faith vs.
reason. I don't accept beliefs based on faith, dogma, or arbitrary preference. I want a reason if I am going to believe. I have many reasons to
accept the scientific worldview. I have no reason to add a belief in god to that worldview. For me, no evidence means no reason to believe. I
don't think that there is any evidence of god, and I don't think that the facts which are presented as evidence really support the existence of god.

I think of the existence of god as a theory(because according the my definition of theory, it is), and generally there are two basic ways to evaluate
a theory. One way is predictive success. If the theory is good, then it can be used to make predictions. Once those predictions are made, we can
test them. If they come true, the theory is supported. If they don't come true, the theory is rejected. The second way has to do with why the
theory exists. A theory is an explanation for some set of observations/facts/evidence. A good theory is the best explanation for the observations;
it fully explains the set of facts in question, it is not inconsistent with other strongly confirmed theories, and no better theory exists to explain
the observations/facts in question.

The predictions associated with the existence of god are widely varied depending on which religion is taken to be accurate, but so far I have seen no
predictive success based on the theory that god exists that could not be better explained in non-mysical terms. As far explaining
evidence/observations/facts, god has been and continues to be used as an explanation for many observations. However, the results are not compelling;
in every case where god has been used as an explanation which science has become equiped to investigte, the scientific explanation has always turned
out to be better than the mystical explanation related to the existance of god. There are observations/facts which are still explained by invoking
god, but these tend to be untestable in principal, simply unaddressed by science at this time due to technological limitations, or highly speculative
philosophical puzzles related to things like the begining of time or the edge of space. For example, I don't consider it evidence for god to say,
"Something had to start everything." I'll tell you why if you would like to know.

Basically, according to my standards for reasons to believe something, the belief in god's existence should not be accepted. There are a couple
possibilities: I'm right and god doesn't exist, or I am not in possession of the most compelling evidence or argument, or my standards for beliefs
are not good standards to use. I'm open to discussion on all counts.

2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?

Of course not. Beliefs don't determine what exists. In fact, it is supposed to be the other way around; we experience what exists and based on
experience we try to form a system of beliefs about what exists.

3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Yes. I agree that not being in possession of some type of evidence is not the same thing as proof that such evidence does not exist. I would go on
to say, however, that absence of evidence is synonymous with absence of a reason to believe. (At least, absence of evidence is the same as absence of
what I consider a good reason to believe. I don't consider faith based on indoctrination or abitrary preference a "good reason" to believe in
something. I am aware that there are people who believe in thing for reasons of faith.)

4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?

I believe that for the most part they are honestly describing their experiences as well as they can. I know that experience does not always
correspond to objective reality. For example, I know that what I experience in dreams can be a very vivid, real experience, but I know that that
experience does not correspond to phenomena which exist in objective reality the way that my waking sensory perceptions correspond to such phenomena.
I also know that, even while awake, we have experiences that do not correspond with phenomena in the external world. I believe that people who have
experienced god have had real experiences, but I believe that those experiences are best explained by neurological phenomena and that neither the
experiential event nor the neurological event can be traced back to a god in the external world.

5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?

I don't know what you mean by weight. Obviously, if I don't believe in god then that means that I don't believe that people have had a direct
experience of god as a real external entity. I think that we can take both claims in good faith. I don't have any reason to believe that these
people are lying about their experience, I just think that they are mistaken when they attribute these experiences to supernatural forces. I haven't
made the claim that I have not experienced god. I know that experience does not always correspond to external reality, and I believe that
experiencing god is one of the types of experiences that does not correspond very well with external reality. There are better explanations for
experiences that seem to be of god than to explain them as literal, mystical experiences of a real divine entity.

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?

I may be missing the point here but if what you're asking me to do is to make something up and tell you about that made up thing, I'm going to have
to pass. If you can explain what you think we would get out of this, and if that sounds reasonable to me, I would play along.

7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?

They are not limited in the sense that they are infinite. They go on forever; an infinite number of unique logical statements can be constructed and
combined and operated on in an infinite number of ways, and reason can be applied to an infinite number of statements and combinations of statements
to derive an infinite number of new statements.

That being said, there certainly are unreasonable and illogical things. Consider this, though: Is there reason or logical on Jupiter or Neptune? Of
course not, everything just is what it is. I would say that logic and reason are purely human concepts, because nothing had a concept of reason or
logic before humans(for the sake of convenience, I'm not accounting for ETs or other higher primates or any other intelligent creatures on earth).
Reason and logic are ultimately just concepts. To attempt to describe their scope or what may or may not be beyond that scope is more a game of
semantics than anything else.

8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?

My atheism is not faith based. I accept the scientific worldview, and I am a scientist. There are a number of reasons that I don't accept the
existence of god, but the main two are that I think it is made up, and think that the scientific worldview is more accurate, justifiable, and
successful than any mystical worldview, and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. If there existed evidence which was best explained by
god, then I would accept that explanation.

Note, however, that scientifically speaking no theory can ever be proven to be a "fact." This is an issue of what these words mean at a fairly
technical level, but theories can only be supported or disproven, never positively proven. That being said, theories are explanations and the best
theory is the best explanation, and the best explanation is all that we have. I accept what I consider to be the best explanation for things, and if
god were the best explanation then I would accept it.

9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that airplanes and the internet were once considered superstitious. Do you mean that people whose worldviews
could not easily account for these things were "spooked" by them, and took them to be suspect?

I'm not sure I have a clear understanding of this question, but if the issue is regarding the relationship between superstitious beliefs and the
larger knowledge base/worldview as a context, then yes, I think that it is an historically accurate observation to say that what is considered
superstituous is determined by how a belief fits into an existing knowledge base/worldview.

10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?

You could say that. I base my beliefs on those things, and, based on those things, I have no reason to believe in god. God is an awfully significant
belief to accept into my worldview for no reason.

I believe that science is the best way to understand the world. Accepting this worldview means that I accept a certain methodology for forming and
evaluating beliefs. So far, this worldview has been unbelievably successful, especially when compared to the hundred thousand years of mysticism
leading up to it. Science is moving along at pretty good clip, and we haven't come across any sign of god yet(I know that this statement won't go
over very well with those believers who see signs of god in every scientific claim, so perhaps I should say that we haven't come across anything
which is best explained by god). In fact, most of our ideas about god come from the organized religions of the world, who, for a very long time, have
told us a lot of stuff that isn't true. I'm not ready to take their word for it at this point.

I'm not sold on faith. If god were supported by reason and evidence, I would be on board. At this point, that's not the case.

1. Why are you an Atheist?
Because there is not evidence for the existence of God. And because if He did exist, he would have to be a creep.

2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist?
I think you misphrased your question here. To answer it as it stands, no--obviously.

3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
For all practical purposes, it may as well be.

4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God?
We all lie to ourselves. More often, we lie to others.

5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience?
No. Duh.

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?
A fugitive wanted for an implausibly long charge-sheet of crimes.

7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned?
Perhaps they are limited. No, there is nothing beyond.

8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist?
Start writing out the charge-sheet.

9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious.
I never knew aeroplanes were superstitious. Does the internet believe in ghosts?

10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically
known?
No, I base it on morality. But all that other stuff you mention supports it.

I am not an atheist I am an agnostic, however I thought i'd take the exam anyhow!

1. Why are you an Atheist? I am an agnostic because there is no proof of either side, and I am comfortable with being at peace with not knowing the answer, I also believe a
true scientist should always an agnostic, otherwise an atheist is the same as a religious person

2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist? Some scientists believe in 11 dimensions, we've never seen any of them. Religious people believe in god, we've never seen god either. We have
however seen forces that can be a source of either above beliefs.

3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? I am an agnostic to this question, is gravity an absence of evidence or evidence of absence? I am unsure!

4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God? That's like saying a super angry person has felt acute anger and thefore felt the devil

5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience? Both claims need to be studied further, until we reach a conclusion both should co-exist in peace as topics of debates

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be? Energy, or the harmony of charged and non charged point particles... or whatever is behind or created the most subatomic particle in our universe,
which would infer that all dimensions have a different god

7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned? Logic yes, and reason... I would say yes but acknowledge that it's debatable

8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist? As an agnostic I would verify the claims and study them intensely

9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious. 101%

10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?Scientists do not do this

edit on 11-9-2010 by ModernAcademia because: Change the headline tag to bold because i'm a nice guy!

Let us hypothetically assume then, that if there is nothing that that will make you believe so, what if Everything itself is God?

Is the situation that you can just define the word 'god' any way that you want to?

Communication is based on a shared language. We each have some idea about what the words mean. If our ideas about the meaning of words are
sufficiently similar, then we will understand eachother. If our ideas about the meaning words are sufficiently different, we will not understand
eachother.

The problem with saying, "Well, what if everything is god?" is two fold. First of all, clearly everything that exists does exist. If we're going
to say that god refers to everything, then you've got the atheists in a pretty tough spot, because all of a sudden when you say you don't believe in
god, god refers to everything, so you don't believe in everything, which by definition means every thing, and I think "thing" implies existence.
This is rather silly, isn't it? Clearly if we're talking about why we don't believe in god, we don't mean "everything" when we say "god." If
we wanted to talk about "everything" we would use the word "everything" which already means everything. We're using the word "god" so we must
have something else in mind.

The second problem with saying, "what if everything is god?" is that it is not different in any important way from saying, "what if everything is a
dream" or a hallucination, or we're in the matrix, or what if everything is a trance brought on by Hypnotoad, or what if everything isn't god, but
is a piece of candy that god is eating. The issue is that the original speculation - that everything is god - is so weak and so speculative and
baseless that it is interchangeable with any number of totally random and equally nonsensical conjectures.

If everything were god, and we're people who accept that everything exists, then do we automatically believe in god? Or is it important for us to
call it god? If the words "everything" and "god" refer to the same thing, then isn't the issue of calling it "god" vs "everything" really
just a frustrating redefinition of the word, which you just made up right now in order to have an argument?

This is a very good thread...and have already enjoyed the few responses...and have not been surprised by the answers.

I am not an atheists so I won't be responding to the questions.

But I enjoyed the answers to this question.

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be?

It is funny that the 3 answers I assumed would sometime showed up have already been stated.

I think these answers are worth looking into more:

6. Looking at the world we live in he would be an absolute prick.

6 – He would probably be me. That would be my ideal god!

A fugitive wanted for an implausibly long charge-sheet of crimes.

I would question why these atheists would blame a god for the worlds problems...and why one of them sees himself as a god. These answers are very
revealing.

I would also ask the atheists that are claiming to be scientists or "use science" or what not...what field of science have they been trained
in...and what type of education they have had in that field.

1. Why are you an Atheist? Because I have no reason to believe in a "God". I don't believe in a "God" for the same reasons that I don't believe in
pink elephants or unicorns. There's no indication that they exist.

2. Does not believing in something prove it does not exist? Of course not. Belief in something or a lack of same proves nothing.

3. Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Yes

4. What do you think about the large number of people that say they have experienced God? They BELIEVE that they have. They are entitled to believe
anything they want. I don't think about it much past that.

5. Does one's claim to have experienced God hold as much weight as your claim to not having had that experience? No. A claim that someone
experienced something unproven does not hold as much weight as MY lack of experience. However, there was a time when I would have said that I
experienced God, too. (I was "saved" in the religious sense) I know now that it was my own emotion that I was experiencing. And I believe that is what
people who say they experience God are experiencing.

6. (Hypothetically) if God did exist, what would your version of he/she/it be? I would have to learn what he or she was like.

7. Is logic and reason limited? And if the answer is yes, is there something beyond the aforementioned? I don't understand this question.

8. (Hypothetically) if science proved the existence of God as fact, what would you do being an Atheist? I would look at the proof and make a
decision based on that. After all, people used to believe that the world was flat. When science proved otherwise, we accepted it.

9. Do you agree superstition is relative to the knowledge of the times? i.e. airplanes and internet were once considered superstitious. Yes

10. Do you base your Atheism specifically on what you can comprehend with your 5 senses, logic/reason, and what is currently scientifically known?
Yes

1) Because no scientific or logical evidence exists for god(s). In much the same way that no scientific evidence exists for fairies, spirits, demons,
imps, etc.

2) No. It is nigh impossible to prove a negative. One cannot fully disprove the possibility that god(s) exist.

3) Yes.

4) I think that while their experiences may seem very genuine to them anecdotal personal experiences cannot form the foundation of what is objectively
real and cannot serve as evidence. If we did accept personal experiences of god as evidence than shamanism, spirits, aliens and fairies would all ALSO
have to be accepted as they have all been "experienced". By the way I was a fundamentalist Christian and could even speak in tongues (still can) and
thought I had "experienced' God but it turns out all of those things have common Earthly explanations. Human perception is very flawed.

5) No. Someone's claim to experiencing God holds absolute NO weight to other people. As I stated in number 4 to base our beliefs on the claims of
others, rather than on objectively verified evidence, is folly and leads to accepting every belief system imaginable.

6) If I were to entertain the notion of god it would be in a pantheistic sense.

7) Yes logic and reason are limited. However logic, science and reason trump superstition every time. Logic and reason are the best tools we have to
determine what is real.

8) No. If there was objectively verified evidence of a deity I would believe in that deity.

9) Superstition is much like Faith, it is beliefs held without evidence. Airplanes were not believed in without evidence, they were conceived of and
then manufactured. Those conceiving them knew they were fictional. And as for the internet the only person really mystified by it is Ted Stevens

10) My five senses have nothing to do with my atheism. Logic reason and science do. The more evidence you collect and the more people who verify that
evidence the closer you can get to a conclusion. So far for God(s) there's no evidence.

Thanks for the invite, but people could not of answered this already any better than I can.
Being agnostic is the way to go. Clearly their is no entity that will judge you on if your good or not, IMHO god is more of a life-force that drives
cellular reproduction, as opposed to a person that watches you 24/7 and will send you to a place to burn if you don't pray on sunday.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.